From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CB0BC6E for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:05:29 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJvBnkfAXQImh2dsb2JhbACQHgEBAQgKKZ1p X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,269,1199660400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="7378756" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2008 15:05:29 +0100 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0TE5TbJ007520 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:05:29 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,269,1199660400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="6699861" Received: from peray.inria.fr (HELO ausone.inria.fr) ([128.93.8.98]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 29 Jan 2008 15:05:29 +0100 Received: by ausone.inria.fr (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, _d Jan 2008 15:04:25 +0100 From: "Nicolas Pouillard" Cc: Berke Durak , caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Ports-like package management system To: Yaron Minsky References: <479F0664.2070706@exalead.com> <891bd3390801290511q29ab5fd4y78ee6d8614461487@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <891bd3390801290511q29ab5fd4y78ee6d8614461487@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:04:25 +0100 Message-Id: <1201615461-sup-979@port-ext5.ensta.fr> User-Agent: Sup/git Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-1201615465-595108-27517-6211-4-="; micalg="pgp-sha1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 479F32A9.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; yaron:01 berke:01 durak:01 berke:01 durak:01 ocaml:01 haskell:01 violate:01 haskell:01 renames:01 intensively:01 ocaml:01 foo:01 pms:98 git:98 X-Attachments: cset="UTF-8" type="application/pgp-signature" name="signature.asc" name="signature.asc" --=-1201615465-595108-27517-6211-4-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Excerpts from Yaron Minsky's message of Tue Jan 29 14:11:55 +0100 2008: > On Jan 29, 2008 5:56 AM, Berke Durak wrote: > > > Basing a PMS for Ocaml on a VCS written in Haskell would violate the > > ``Trading with the Enemy'' act. Moreover Darcs has some performance > > problems of its own. > > > Come now, Haskell is a dear friend and relative, not an enemy at all. Exact, however I think that was Berke's humor :) > Besides, darcs has some key advantages for this kind of use. Cherry-picking > and flexible maintenance of patches on top of someone else's tree would be > very valuable for this kind of application, and neither hg nor git support > that use case well. And I believe the darcs team is making real advances > towards fixing these problems. That's fully right, darcs2 solve a lot of his formers issues. > If not darcs, I would choose hg next. hg supports windows well, which is a > big deal, I think. Its user interface was more pleasant than git's last I > checked. And it has some support for renames (not as good as darc's or > bzr's, but still good.) We've used hg very intensively at Jane Street and > have been very happy with the results. I'm largely in favor of darcs. > > Let's get back to the subject. BSD ports are also based on make, > > whose main limitation, the static dependency graph, has been addressed > > in ocamlbuild. I know there is Omake, but I think it suffers from the > > ``Yet Another Turing-Complete Language'' syndrome. > > > > Does anyone with experience with both omake and ocamlbuild have an opinion > on the matter? I've used omake quite a bit, and ocamlbuild not at all. In > my mind, omake has the advantage that I'm pretty sure it's up to the task. > ocamlbuild has the advantage of being in the standard distribution and > having OCaml as its extension language. It would be great to get the > opinion of someone who knows both systems well. I think that dynamic dependency graph of ocamlbuild could really help. > > So I am calling for a solution based on a ports-like system but based > > on a distributed VCS and on an improved ocamlbuild. > > > > Assume you are writing a program FOO and want to use a package BAR > > available from bar.org. You tell ocamlbuild by adding some tag such > > as > > > > : require(http://bar.org/repository/) > > > It would also be nice to have a set of versions of the various libraries > that hang together, as GODI does. Otherwise, problems in the case where > there are packages A, B and C where A depends on B and C and B depends on > C. You need a version of C that works with your versions of A and B, or > you're sunk. So some central repo where you can maintain a set of "safe" > versions would allow for a developer to ask for a easily pull a collection > of working libraries. Yes, we have to think about a clean interface to specify versions without fall into a too much complex system. -- Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai --=-1201615465-595108-27517-6211-4-= Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFHnzJpj+FCNw9dwLkRAkCRAKCYer7h/wUcJVsdpKtLBJrRoAPQYACdEdNQ bURCWZ4CTHi+AmuKTRihd7o= =Nxdx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-1201615465-595108-27517-6211-4-=--